Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K.GAUBA, J.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ANIL YADAV & ORS. – Respondents
MAC.APP. 706/2005
Decided On : 23-2-2016
Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Virmani, Adv. For R-1
The burden of proof in cases of this nature is based on a preponderance of probabilities, and the failure to produce evidence by the opposing party does not undermine the claimant's case.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 166 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with the application for compensation. The court also referred to Section 170 and Section 173 of the MV Act, which pertain to the procedure for application to the Claims Tribunal and appeals respectively.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant suffered injuries and disability due to a car accident. The insurer contested the claim, alleging false averments and manipulation of evidence. The Tribunal found in favor of the claimant, awarding compensation. The insurer appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the insurer's contentions and upheld the Tribunal's decision. It emphasized that the claimant's burden of proof was based on a preponderance of probabilities, and the insurer's failure to produce evidence was not the claimant's responsibility.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authenticity of the claimant's injuries, the negligence of the driver, and the delay in filing the FIR. The court addressed these issues in the context of the burden of proof and the insurer's failure to produce evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimant's burden of proof was based on a preponderance of probabilities, and the insurer's failure to produce evidence did not undermine the claimant's case. The court also considered the delay in filing the FIR in light of the claimant's medical treatment and the responsibility of the local police.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award of compensation granted by the Tribunal. The claimant was entitled to release the deposited amounts with accrued interest, and the statutory deposit by the insurer would be refunded only after the award was satisfied.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
1. On the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), registered as suit No.726/03 (2003), the first respondent herein was awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1651205/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition (21.07.1998) till actual payment, by judgment dated 29.07.2005, as corrected by a subsequent order of the same date, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal). For awarding the said amount of compensation, the Tribunal, on the basis of inquiry held, concluded that the first respondent (the claimant) had suffered the said injuries, and consequent disability to the extent of 50%, due to amputation of his right arm, on account of an accident that had occurred at about 8.15 PM in the area of Behror District Alwar, Rajasthan involving car bearing No. RJ 14 2C 3232 (the offending vehicle) owned by the second respondent herein and driven by the third respondent herein, it admittedly being insured against third party risk covering the relevant period with the appellant insurance company (the insurer). On the basis of the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the offended vehicle, its driver (the third respondent herein) having been held to be the principal tort-feasor, the owner of the offending vehicle (the second respondent herein) was found to be vicariously liable and consequentially the insurer was asked to indemnify and pay the compensation to the claimant.
2. The appeal at hand, presented under Section 173 of MV Act by the insurer, has been pressed to contend that the evidence has been manipulated and there was no involvement of the car in the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claim having been set up on the basis of false averments.
3. The background facts have been noted by the Tribunal in the opening para of the impugned judgment thus :
“Petitioner of these proceedings under the provisions of section 166 Motor Vehicles Act 1988, had the misfortune of having lost his right arm at an age of 32 years in a roadside accident. Factual matrix as pleaded by petitioner is that on 09/4/97 he visited Behror, District Alwar Rajasthan alongwith his wife Smt. Sangita Yadav and brother-in-law Anurag Gupta in order to meet his family friend Sandeep Singh. On 10/4/97 when petitioner and the said three persons were travelling in car bearing no. RJ-14-2C-3232 (herein after referred to as the offending car) the accident occurred at about 8.15pm in the area of Behror. It is pleaded by petitioner that at the time of accident the offending car was being driven by his brother-in-law Sh. Anurag Gupta. Petitioner was sitting on the rear right seat and his wife was sitting on rear left seat while Sh. Sandeep Singh was sitting on front left seat of the offending car. After the offending car had travelled barely 1-2 km on National Highway No. 8 towards Jaipur, from opposite direction a truck came at a very high speed and on its wrong side. In order to avoid collision with the said truck respondent no. 2 swerved the offending car towards right and lost control over the same, due to which rear right portion of the car collided against a tree, causing grievous injuries on right forearm of petitioner. Immediately after the accident injured petitioner was rushed to the Government Hospital, Behror, from where he was advised to be shifted to some better hospital in Delhi as the local Behror hospital did not have adequate facilities. As such immediately petitioner was rushed to Delhi and got admitted in Apollo Hospital where his treatment continued till 06/5/97. Thereafter he was shifted to Maharaja Agarsain Hospital on the same day and his treatment continued till September 1997, whereafter he was shifted to Tirath Ram Shah Hospital. There, finally his right arm was amputated above elbow.”
4. The Tribunal’s record shows that the second and third respondents herein (i.e. the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively) filed th
